Moveon.org vs. SBVT - What's the difference?

[hexola]

The right is trying to equate these two groups. While they may both be 527s...that's where the similarity ends.

If I'm not mistaken, Moveon.org predates the Kerry campaing by many years. It's not a group based on or organized by any particular candidate.

And why doesn't BushCo. speak up about Moveon.org...?

[MallRat]

1. MoveOn was founded during the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

Hence the name, "Move On."

Also, there's no comparison in the ads these two organizations are running. MoveOn takes issue with Bush's record as President and poses unresolved questions about his TANG duty.

SBV just lies about Kerry. There's no twisting or spinning of facts with them. They simply lie in an effort to make something stick to Kerry. Men who weren't there are making statements they can't defend under even the lightest of scrutiny.

Night and Day.

-MR

[papau]

18. personal, negative, pushing boundaries of political discourse ads are OK

personal, negative, pushing boundaries of political discourse ads are OK

Or that seems to be the way the ABCNote put it this morning

"the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false. To be (secretly) associated with them (and a presidential campaign) is qualitatively different than working with any of other 527s on either side, whose ads are at their most extreme simply personal, negative, and arguably pushing the boundaries of political discourse."

[Trajan]

2. Confuting two different issues ....

Free Speech versus Honesty ...

The right to SPEAK is not in doubt: ... Those 527's can express their views without limit ...

But to promote blatant lies in an attempt to SMEAR somone is immoral ...

The problem is NOT the SBL's exercizing free speech: the problem is they are LYING .....

[TexasBushwhacker]

3. MoveOn.org doesn't run ads

MoveOn.org is a 527 and as the FEC allows, it only supports and organizes non-partisan activities, like voter registration drives. The pro-Kerry ads are produced and paid for by the MoveOn PAC. As a Political Action Committee, the MoveOn PAC cannot accept donations greater than $5000 from any one individual, but they have the freedom to support partisan activities. This, IMHO, should be the focus, or at least one of the issues taken up with the Swifties. By remaining a 527 and taking unlimited donations ($200K from Bob Perry alone) they should not be doing anything that favors one candidate or party over another.

[MercutioATC]

7. Have you LOOKED at their site? They most certainly run ads.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. They have two different legal entities

[MercutioATC]

19. You're right. I guess it was the "View our ad" link on MoveOn.org's

homepage that threw me.

There IS a definite legal distinction, but let's not play with semantics here. When the right bitches about "MoveOn", they're bitching about both MoveOn and MoveOnPAC (which are only distinguished from each other by legality - they're the same thing for all intents and purposes).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Just because the right can't keep their facts straight

doesn't mean we shouldn't keep correcting them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. It's almost depressing how unsurprised I am

that the media refuses to report this crucial point.

[hexola]

10. MoveOn.org vs. MoveOn PAC - that's an important distinction! Thanks!

Thanks for that info...

[RamboLiberal]

22. Is there something official we could latch on to and email?

I'm thinking to both the RW pundit hacks and to liberal hosts that explains the difference. If the Moveon ads are funded by a PAC, then this also blows the hacks out of the water with their complaint cause all I hear when the SBVL is brought up is the counter of Move On trashes *.

If there was even something we could back up calling hosts with.

Someone needs to get this point out to the media.

[Virginian]

24. The answer is MoveOn doesn't run ads. MoveOn PAC does.

TexasBushWhacker has the best answer. This info needs to get to some of the talking heads so they can distinguish the difference. Thanks TBW, I didn't know that either.

Crossfire was talking about the Hitler ad MoveOn "ran." The only Hitler ad I saw was from the Bush people. Who knows, maybe it was one of them who submitted it to MoveOn's contest.

on edit:
Why hasn't John Kerry agreed with Bush on stopping "candidate" ads from 527 groups? I can almost hear him hanging Bush out to dry, "Do you really want to stop 527 ads?" "How about just 527 ads that are promoting a candidate, would that do?" "OK, I agree with you on that, technically." "Is it OK with you if PACs still remain intact? It is? Good."

[skip fox]

4. Reference file on SBVT (w/ hot links!) in DU's Editorials:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x69684

[nyhuskyfan]

5. Moveon was born during the Clinton impeachment...

Their message was "let's censure him and move on", hence the name.

The problem isn't 527's. If SBV wanted to put out an ad saying that they disagreed with Kerry's foreign policy, fine. It's the lying and the smearing without accontability that's the problem. If moveon put out an ad that was a bunch of lies, they would deserve to be hammered, too.

[GOPAgainstGW]

6. MoveOn is a Totally Different Animal

Yeah it's a Democratic 527, but it has 1000% more independent structure and setup than SBVT.

SBVT is illegal and as fraudulent as a Houston criminal attorney, investigating this situation for us has ever seen for a 527.

Guarantee there will be some indictments over Bush-GOP-SBVT and Bob Perry before it's all over!

[napi21]

8. It's a fair question.

Please don't shoot me! It is a fair question that Wolf asked. Is there a difference between Ginsberg providing counsel to the SBVFT while being coulsel to to shrub's campaign, and Bob Bower counseling MoveOn?

I think the difference is that Ginsberg is the paid counsel for shrub camp. and Bower is just a Dem supporter, but I really don't know anything about Bower.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. Bower is not working for the Kerry campaign

Ginsberg is working for bush

[gollygee]

11. If the swift liars

had ads that simply said, "I am a swift boat vet, and I am not voting for John Kerry," THEN the two situations would be parallel.

However, the swift boat vets are LYING. They aren't simply stating their opinion. They are LYING. MoveOn states an opinion - they are opposed to Bush and they aren't hiding it. But they don't LIE.

[dolstein]

12. The difference? The Moveon.org ads are basically true

And on the rare occasion where they've crossed the line, Kerry has condemned the ads. Bush hasn't done that.

[nickgutierrez]

15. Well, Bush did, in a way

I considered his whole "I condemn all 527's" to be a shot at MoveOn. The difference, of course, is that Moveon is actually funded by people not involved with the Kerry campaign, while the Not-So-Swifties are funded by people connected to the Bush campaign.

This, of course, does not matter to Shrub.

[lovedems]

16. Move on is funded by its 2 million members. SBVT is funded by

republican fat cats with connections to KKKarl.

[Cheswick2.0]

17. bush really was awol from the service

and Kerry really did serve honorably (as honorable as you can be while fighting in war) in Viet Nam.

The swiftboat liars for bush are scum.

[AP]

21. One's telling the truth, the other's telling lies.

Nobody on the right is arguing that MoveOn's ads are lies.

In fact, I don't think Bush has given a reason for why he doesn't like MoveOn. It's probably because they're telling the truth.

[Toucano]

25. Another nutshell from AP

Thanks as usual.

That's the only difference voters should care about.

[Lizz612]

23. I think the LA Times Editorial said it well

"There is an important difference, though, between the side campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty, personal and false."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-swiftpress24aug24,0,2215968.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials